September 1, 2007
Chapter 2: “Negotiations”
On July 13, 2006 principals representing the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) and CCPOA met in an out of the way little restaurant, sat down to have a burger and discuss how the negotiation process might begin and per Dave Gilb "outline the issues to see where we need to go."
Dave Gilb, then recently appointed Director of the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA), shared with us that the State was mainly interested in making progress on six areas of our contract. He said, "We want to focus on very specific things in the MOU-not everything. We want to get an agreement to start building trust." He also said that the leadership of the CDCR felt that they were "unable to properly manage" with sections of the contract that spoke to sick leave, post and bid, grievances and the "entire agreement" (Section 27.01) section of the contract. He further broke the State's wish list into six fairly narrow items:
- Addressing sick leave "offenders"
- PIEs calling in sick after being hired for a shift causing triple costs for coverage of one post.
- More flexibility on post and bid
- Changing the DJJ staffing ratio to conform to staff increases in the Ferrall consent decree.
- Modifying 27.01 to allow management flexibility
- A more effective grievance process
Mr. Gilb also spoke about the need for some "technical clean-up" of language in the contract that was antiquated or no longer applicable in light of the change in the name and mission of the departments. Mr. Gilb made it a point to tell us that the Administration wanted to make a deal. He stated several times in several different ways that the Governor understood how critical the situation in the prison system had become. Declaration Of Emergency He also said that the Governor knew how much overtime was being forced and how many vacancies existed. Mr. Gilb said the Governor knew that real reform would cost a lot, but his commitment was to fix it.
Mr. Gilb only spoke briefly about pay, but indicated that our formula wasn't a big problem except for classifications at the high end of the pay scale (PAs, CC1s, CC2 Specialists, etc.) and asked if we would entertain a set dollar amount for all members, but still maintain the formula for top step Correctional Officer. His hook was neither accepted nor rejected, we weren't negotiating.
Taking our turn at sharing wish lists, we presented five items (coming in Chapter 3). Overall it was a reasonably cordial meeting, professionally conducted by all present, including Dennis Batchelder, the State's specially contracted Chief Negotiator. Job Bulletin The meeting closed with Mr. Gilb assuring us that he would demonstrate the need for his proposed changes, that he would "justify and defend" each and every proposed language change the State negotiators planned to present.
We departed with the customary exchanges of handshakes and contact information. CCPOA's Chief of Labor/Chief Negotiator, Steve Weiss made arrangement to resume negotiations later in the week.
Moving back in history a small bit let me tell you what preceded the quaint luncheon I've just recounted.
The very first negotiation session between the parties took place at CCPOA Headquarters on June 9, 2006.
The State team arrived and gathered in their appointed conference room. After a short period the Chief Negotiator for the State, Dennis Batchelder, (hired specifically to negotiate against CCPOA) Batchelder Hired knocked on the door to the main conference room and announced that his team was ready to bargain. For our part, team members had read and discussed each of the member questionnaires, studied the issues important to both sides and felt fully prepared. To demonstrate our organization's commitment to the process, achieving an equitable outcome and our collective support for the team, every Executive Council member of CCPOA was present. We also wanted the Batchelder consortium to know that we were perfectly willing to engage in the process if circumstances warranted.
We were also prepared to record negotiations, admittedly an unprecedented act. We had arranged video and audio equipment so the entirety of negotiations would be available for the Legislature, the courts, the media and the general public to review. We felt recording the meeting was appropriate in light of all the attention being drawn by the Governor's very recent declaration of "a crisis in the prison system." In fact, the Legislature had been directed to enter in to a "special session" to pass legislation to rescue the severely overcrowded system.
Once again we knew, no matter what kind of agreement was made, it would be CCPOA alone defending it to the world. It seemed that both audio and video records of the process would be an adequate answer for anyone willing to watch and/or listen to hours and hours of what tends to be mostly boring exchanges. Verification seemed appropriate, considering three of the State's negotiators had also participated in the (2004) amendment to our 2001-2006 MOU, which resulted in a bitter arbitration concerning our pay. CCPOA was victorious achieving a decision that resulted in a large cash settlement. (Pay Arb. #1) Certainly we are all familiar with the cliché, "Fool me once; shame on you, fool me twice; shame on me."
Why wouldn't we want to record the process of negotiating a new contract? If for no other reason, it would reduce any potential for damage to the employer/employee relationship borne from fighting over who said what, which proposal was put across the table last, how a formula works and what is included, and who was present on any given day. Consider that any time one our members are questioned about our acts or omissions, we are questioned while a tape is rolling. Many of us work under the constant vigil of a recording device.
Some of us have become victims of poor quality video, and a complete absence of audio, in the department's recordings. Despite any concerns we may have with being recorded, we still go to work and do the job that we are paid to do. Heroic and courageous acts are also recorded but are seldom seen by the public. One might think the management team would just accept our videotaping and consider it an aspect of the job. One would be horrifically wrong if they made that assumption.
We signed in, asked a few perfunctory questions and passed the State's negotiators and document acknowledging that they had full authority to negotiate all of the proposals presented in the State's "sunshine" package, which they refused to sign Authority to Bargain. Mr. Batchelder received a note from a member of his team. He immediately called a caucus (timeout) meeting with his team and they all exited the room. After fifteen or twenty minutes, Mr. Batchelder returned and asked Steve Weiss to step out of the conference room. Mr. Weiss returned and informed our team that "under no circumstances" would the State team return to the negotiating table with any recording devices present. Video Cameras In hindsight, this single dispute would reveal more about the DPA's motives, objectives, and tactics than we ever imagined.
It's the absence of an objective record that has allowed DPA to declare impasse without having a single proposal on the table. Because no records exist beyond handwritten notes, except for two days of transcription and our brief recording, the DPA is able, and more than willing, to deceive the world by saying they have done everything possible to make a deal.
Later, using the Governor's bully pulpit, with the media as his audience, Mr. Gilb knows that he will be able to portray us as greedy guards Billion $ Statement and won't be challenged by any of the "invited guests" or be affected by the truth. The Governor will remain a media darling and reporters will still jump at the opportunity to interview him. Any serious challenge to the Administration could jeopardize the chance of a lifetime for a reporter. Its all "he said/she said" anyhow. Because none of it was recorded and DPA's design will have been preserved.
Fast forward to late July 2006:
After meeting the week prior without success in our attempts to negotiate ground rules, we set negotiations for Sunday, July30th. The CCPOA team was seriously interested in moving negotiations along in hopes of having something for the Legislature to vote on before adjournment in early September. After all, there was a Special Session of the Legislature underway and we were in the eye of the storm.
We were also cautiously optimistic that Mr. Gilb was basically genuine in luncheon meeting when he said the Administration wanted to move forward on prison reform. This optimism wasn't based solely on Gilb's assurances though. In the widely publicized meetings between CCPOA and the Administration's Senior Staff, there were numerous discussions about the Governor's thoughts on rehabilitation, and the impossibility of accomplishing significant reform without the support of Bargaining Unit 6.
It now appears that some cost/benefit analysis was done and the Administration has decided the cost of reform wasn't worth the benefit of rehabilitating anyone. Besides, the Administration had apparently already developed a plan to carry out the first rule of ALL bureaucrats: HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME! The Governor has made this an art form. With just a little prompting, he once again took aim at state employees.
Unaware they were again forming a plan to blame Correctional Peace Officers for all the failings of the overcrowded prison system, CCPOA's negotiating team worked hard (without recording) all week to achieve ground rules so the real issues of bargaining could begin. At about five o'clock on a hot Sunday afternoon, after CCPOA compromised on nearly every issue concerning ground rules, the state refused to sign them. After a week of debating, time, location, number of team members, travel costs, travel time, supervisory presence, room size, room costs, recording devices, transcribers, length of caucuses, length of workdays, what would and what wouldn't be negotiated, and everything else in between, Dennis Batchelder refused to sign ground rules.
Ground Rules They Passed Ground Rules We Passed
Mr. Batchelder then decided ground rules were unnecessary. Oddly, it was Batchelder who refused to negotiate with recording devices present, clearly an element of ground rules, but with cameras out of the room, rules aren't needed. In the interest of making a deal, we had softened on all the issues that Mr. Batchelder said were important for him to be able to move the State team towards a deal. CCPOA Executive Council members had stepped away from the negotiating table as an exercise in good faith to give the negotiating teams a chance to start working collaboratively in an environment apart from the pressures of press and politics.
Despite the hard work and anguish associated with early compromise, nothing had been accomplished. Then, to add insult to injury, Mr. Batchelder chose a rare Sunday session to drop a three-hundred-fifty-page package proposal State Package Offer on the table and add that the State was done for the day. With that, the State's negotiating team got up, collected their belongings and walked out of the room.
The next day's session, scheduled to begin at nine o'clock, signified what would soon become typical of the State's effort for future meetings: it started late and ended early. Our entire team was present on time, despite spending long hours the night before digesting the State's "package deal" and still seething over its actions the day before. It wasn't just the waste of an entire week's effort, nor was it the cavalier attitude displayed when the State team tossed down what they had to know was a completely unacceptable and reprehensible proposal and left the building. Even the collective effort by DPA staff to negotiate in bad faith, by itself, wasn't enough to provoke my response on that last day in July. All of the issues combined, when viewed in the context of the existing situation, created an explosion. The blast was fueled by the frustration of genuine effort and time wasted. The flames were fanned by the unmitigated gall of DPA to pick six issues we care about and make a mockery of them by burying them in three hundred fifty pages of garbage. And the fuse was ignited when Dennis Batchelder told us that the State expected us to pay half of the cost of the transcriber he hired.
Yes, there was a tirade and it went on for several minutes. The transcript is nothing we should be or are proud of. Certainly my mother would not be pleased to hear many of the words that flew from my mouth that morning. The State's total lack of concern about the dangers of overcrowding referenced in the Administration's Emergency Declaration became a catalyst for that mounting fury. My mind's eye could not dislodge the image of young children, friends and family members mourning the deaths of brave, honest men and women like Sgt. Birchfield, YCC Baker or Officer Gonzalez, all killed during my career by the cold deliberate and preventable inmate acts. These images haunt my sleep and keep me awake at night. The words of a father missing his child still rings in my ears constantly. That anyone, let alone the likes of Batchelder, Gilb or our current Governor, could imagine that those three-hundred-fifty-pages represented anything akin to a deal worth the sacrifice could only cause a more reasoned man than I more rage than I have the capacity to express.
I do not apologize for, nor do I justify my behavior that day. It is what it is, I said what I said, and I still feel what I felt. This is not the time for apologies. Promises were made, insults were exchanged and the business at hand has yet to be attended. But if an apology is what is needed to give the negotiators for the State what they need to begin anew in earnest, I can deliver as much. They should know up front that if any of them think it is OK to be cute, clever, or play games and recklessly endanger the lives of the men and women who walk our beat every day and night so the citizens of California can sleep safely, work and play without fear, I'll likely be apologizing again.
I do not fear apologies. I welcome the opportunity to express my passionate respect and appreciation for the membership of CCPOA, the professionalism and dedication they exhibit everyday as they perform a necessary and despicable job under the most adverse of circumstances. For years our union has been falsely credited with being the most powerful labor force in the State of California. If this were true, after 30 years, we would not still be trailing the meter maids of the State's highways in respect, working conditions and compensation. We would not still be burdened with the false public image of being the villains of law enforcement. We already work the toughest beat in the state; how much more punishment should our members endure for the failures of the last few generations of the Corrections Agency's leadership?
